Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
This article argues that ‘Critical International Relations’, often counterpoised to ‘mainstream IR’, has come to function as a major theoretical category in its own right. It argues that critique involves ‘minor theorising’, defined as the practice of disturbing settled theoretical assumptions in the discipline. The article examines the role and significance of ‘minor theories’ in the context of ongoing debates about Critical IR. It argues that critique is defined by context, and is politically and ethically ambiguous. The article concludes that the scope for critique could be advanced if the terms ‘Critical IR’ and ‘Critical IR Scholar’ are dropped from scholarly parlance.
Highlights
In the 1980s ‘Critical International Relations Theory’ began to be rhetorically counterposed to ‘Mainstream IR Theory’ (Cox, 1981; Linklater, 1990; Neufeld, 1993; Price and Reus-Smit, 1998; Smith et al, 1996; Steans, 2003)
Should scholars committed to the vocation of academic critique be celebrating the rise to power of ‘Critical IR’ as an identifying label? After all, it appears to have aided theoretical pluralisation within disciplinary IR, and opened space for novel, often ethically and politically engaged, scholarship
The article argues that the identifier ‘Critical IR Scholar’ has become a problematic label by which to describe academics, giving rise to significant downsides for scholarship in the field
Summary
Should scholars committed to the vocation of academic critique be celebrating the rise to power of ‘Critical IR’ as an identifying label? After all, it appears to have aided theoretical pluralisation within disciplinary IR, and opened space for novel, often ethically and politically engaged, scholarship. The article argues that the identifier ‘Critical IR Scholar’ has become a problematic label by which to describe academics, giving rise to significant downsides for scholarship in the field. To some extent this is a permutation of the problem of categorisation and labelling that all academic disciplines face. I argue that ‘Critical IR’, as a category of scholarship, creates specific sociological and methodological issues that are distinct from the problem of categorisation in general, because it can undermine the practice of critique itself. The second section explores the rise of ‘Critical IR’ as a sociological category within the discipline, distinct from the practice of critique. This will enrich debates about the politics and ethics of IR theory, rather than conflating politics and ethics with disciplinarity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
